Legacy Standard Bible - a year after translation

[iainduguid]

Let me start, as I always do, by reminding us that translation is really hard. You can't write extensive notes to defend your decisions, as you would in a commentary, half of your footnotes will be deleted and there's always a chance that an English style editor will change what you wrote. You are also often hemmed in by the unwise decisions of a general editor somewhere along the way, often someone who has no personal experience of the translation process. I also haven't used the LSB extensively, so bear that in mind in reading my evaluation.

Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.

The same problem exists for the much-trumpeted doulos = slave in all contexts translation. There are some places where doulos certainly ought to be translated slave. But there are plenty of other places where "servant" is a more apt rendition into English of the person's role. The result is a flattening of the Biblical text that results in a loss of nuance. It also - once again - threatens to put a rift between the OT and the NT; for example, according to this understanding Zech 3:8 ought to speak of "my slave, the Branch" (since LXX has doulos); fortunately, the translation goes for a more sensible (and traditional) "my servant, the Branch"). Very few words in one language always translate into a single word in another language: that's just not how languages work; so for example, ruach should be rendered breath, Spirit and wind, sometimes all within a short space (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-14). That's why nobody (except perhaps Youngs literal translation, which completely misrepresents the meaning of Ezekiel 37 because of its overly literal translation) adopts a consistently literal translation policy. Everyone (including the LSB) uses a more dynamic translation sometimes.

Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board). It still sometimes felt like an overwhelming project.

At risk of piling on, in the OT the LSB calls Moses "the servant of God" (Ex. 14:31; Mal. 4:4; etc.), while in the NT he becomes "the slave of God" (Rev. 15:3) because of its commitment that doulos = slave. In other words, the pursuit of verbal consistency in one area comes at the cost of verbal consistency in another.

 

[pylgrym]

From the Preface to the (AV1611) reader:
" ... wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie.
" But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?
"A godly Father in the Primitive time shewed himselfe greatly moved, that one of the newfanglenes called , though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had beene used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, wee might justly feare hard censure, if generally wee should make verball and unnecessary changings.
"We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us. Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sence, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar."

 

[Jake]

The name was changed because many non Americans like a literal translation - that the name 'Legacy' rather than 'American' reaches a global audience.

It's funny to me how divorced many Bible translation names are from what they represent. For starters, most American-made translations use American spelling, grammar, and sometimes even units of measure no matter how much they claim to be something like the "International" version of the "English Standard."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me start, as I always do, by reminding us that translation is really hard. You can't write extensive notes to defend your decisions, as you would in a commentary, half of your footnotes will be deleted and there's always a chance that an English style editor will change what you wrote. You are also often hemmed in by the unwise decisions of a general editor somewhere along the way, often someone who has no personal experience of the translation process. I also haven't used the LSB extensively, so bear that in mind in reading my evaluation.

Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.

The same problem exists for the much-trumpeted doulos = slave in all contexts translation. There are some places where doulos certainly ought to be translated slave. But there are plenty of other places where "servant" is a more apt rendition into English of the person's role. The result is a flattening of the Biblical text that results in a loss of nuance. It also - once again - threatens to put a rift between the OT and the NT; for example, according to this understanding Zech 3:8 ought to speak of "my slave, the Branch" (since LXX has doulos); fortunately, the translation goes for a more sensible (and traditional) "my servant, the Branch"). Very few words in one language always translate into a single word in another language: that's just not how languages work; so for example, ruach should be rendered breath, Spirit and wind, sometimes all within a short space (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-14). That's why nobody (except perhaps Youngs literal translation, which completely misrepresents the meaning of Ezekiel 37 because of its overly literal translation) adopts a consistently literal translation policy. Everyone (including the LSB) uses a more dynamic translation sometimes.

Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board). It still sometimes felt like an overwhelming project.

That, in a nutshell, is why people need to be careful when they say they prefer a more "literal" translation. Literal meaning what? That you want a word woodenly translated from one language to another or literal in the sense that you want to understand what the original writer was communicating?

I believe we ought to have readable translations of the Scriptures that can be used by peopple who don't have the facility for advanced study in language, but there is just no way to get around the fact that we will always need teachers to explain certain things. That includes idioms and other things that just don't tranlsate well when you're trying to translate "word" for "word". I think it's always a challenge for the translators to decide to leave the words in as they translate across and leave it up to the teacher to explain what that conveys to a modern reader or to try to do the work of the "teacher" by interpreting the meaning.
I've really enjoyed reading this discussion. You've motivated me to use the CSB for my upcoming reading plan that I'll begin in 2023 once I close out my current plan.

 

[Polanus1561]

NASB 95 for me in 2023. Got me a nice Quentel for that. Its footnotes provide a wide range of semantical uses of words.

 

[ZackF]

You've motivated me to use the CSB for my upcoming reading plan that I'll begin in 2023 once I close out my current plan.

Ditto on the CSB. I am actually using a 2yr chronological plan. The handling of the Psalms isn't the greatest but overall, it will get the job done.

 

[Polanus1561]

Ditto on the CSB. I am actually using a 2yr chronological plan. The handling of the Psalms isn't the greatest but overall, it will get the job done.

Psalm 23:1… sigh

 

[ZackF]

Psalm 23:1… sigh

I meant the reading plan and not the translation. This is informative though... That CSB reading does sound like getting a pizza missing the extra pepperoni.

 

[pmachapman]

It's funny to me how divorced many Bible translation names are from what they represent. For starters, most American-made translations use American spelling, grammar, and sometimes even units of measure no matter how much they claim to be something like the "International" version of the "English Standard

Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!

 

[Eyedoc84]

Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!

I thought you spoke the Queen’s English?

 

[pmachapman]

I thought you spoke the Queen’s English?

I believe when our National Anthem changes to God save the King, our language changes too?

In any case, this was one of the books I learned grammar from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_English

 

[Jake]

Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!

Yes, but why do we need an Anglicised version if that's the default in most of the non-America world?

 

[Jake]

Psalm 23:1… sigh

I know you're partial to the rendering of the Passion "Translation"

"Yahweh is my best friend and my shepherd. I always have more than enough."

 

[TheInquirer]

"Literal" can be used as a marketing point to sell to a "low information audience" that doesn't know anything about Bible translation - as in "ours is more literal than everything else so therefore you NEED to trust us and buy it."

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.

I appreciate this insight. Some of the LSB advertising material made me feel a little guilty for not using a translation using the word 'Yahweh' but I can now see the advantage of using LORD particularly considering the NT usage.

I was amused at your comment about the LSB last year

mainly addressing MacArthur's pet peeves.

Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board).

The LSB was primarily done by faculty members of both the Masters Seminary and the Masters University. I am not sure how widely they consulted experts from other organisations.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

speak the King's English!

Speaking as one New Zealander to another, are you suggesting there is an inextricable link between speaking the King's English and driving on the correct side of the road?

 

[Polanus1561]

Some people want the church to do a translation, some want a variety of translators (presumably from different churches as a parachurch effort)…. So what’s the final word here?

If say the OPC did a translation and WTS professors are involved… would the translation be seen as being too “narrow”?

 

[iainduguid]

I think people perhaps underestimate the work involved in a Bible translation. I read that the KJV had over sixty people involved in the project; the HCSB had about 100. The LSB is more a light revision of a pre-existing text (the NASB) than an entirely fresh translation. That's more like the shift from the HCSB to the CSB, which was still the work of 10 primary editors (5 OT and 5 NT). Each of my fellow members of the OT committee (2 Presbyterians, 2 Baptists, and a Lutheran) had tremendously valuable contributions to make. The end result would have been significantly worse if we had less. It would take a lot more than the resources WTS has (or the OPC, PCA or ARP has) to create a new translation, especially since most scholars have many other projects they are working on for the benefit of the church and the best known are probably only willing to commit to projects with deadlines more than five years away.

 

[bookslover]

I read that the KJV had over sixty people involved in the project;

Over sixty people couldn't figure out that the Holy Spirit is not an "it" in Romans 8:16.

 

[Taylor]

Over sixty people couldn't figure out that the Holy Spirit is not an "it" in Romans 8:16.

There’s no need to phrase the matter in this manner. They didn’t need to “figure out” anything, being eminently greater theologians than likely any of us here. They knew the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” They could have chosen this rendering for some reason unknown to us, or it could have been an honest oversight. Unless you have some historical insight that no one else has, I would suggest avoiding such irreverent criticism. Perhaps you meant it in jest; it just appeared to be a cheap shot.

 

[Polanus1561]

There’s no need to phrase the matter in this manner. They didn’t need to “figure out” anything, being eminently greater theologians than likely any of us here. They knew the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” They could have chosen this rendering for some reason unknown to us, or it could have been an honest oversight. Unless you have some historical insight that no one else has, I would suggest avoiding such irreverent criticism. Perhaps you meant it in jest; it just appeared to be a cheap shot.

Is it not just a neuter noun issue

 

[Taylor]

Is it not just a neuter noun issue

The noun πνεῦμα ("S/spirit") and the pronoun αὐτὸ ("it/itself/same") in Romans 8:16 are both neuter, yes.

 

[bookslover]

The noun πνεῦμα ("S/spirit") and the pronoun αὐτὸ ("it/itself/same") in Romans 8:16 are both neuter, yes.

Then they, knowing that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, a person, should have made the theological decision to override the grammar to reflect that fact, as modern translations do ("The Holy Spirit himself. . ." ESV, for example). To woodenly translate the term using "it," even though the Holy Spirit is not an "it," is bad translation procedure.

 

[Taylor]

Then they, knowing that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, a person, should have made the theological decision to override the grammar to reflect that fact, as modern translations do ("The Holy Spirit himself. . ." ESV, for example). To woodenly translate the term using "it," even though the Holy Spirit is not an "it," is bad translation procedure.

This should have been your initial comment. It is much better than "sixty people couldn't figure it out."

 

[bookslover]

This should have been your initial comment. It is much better than "sixty people couldn't figure it out."

It would be interesting to know why they didn't make that rather obvious decision. Plus, as it is, it's dangerous. I wonder how many heretics have tried to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is not a person but, rather, an influence, based on the KJV's translation of Romans 8:16.

 

[Taylor]

It would be interesting to know why they didn't make that rather obvious decision.

I don't know, and neither do you, which is my entire point. Asking the question and even some guarded speculation is fine, but saying they "couldn't figure out" that the Spirit is not a thing as opposed to a person contributes virtually nothing.

...as it is, it's dangerous. I wonder how many heretics have tried to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is not a person but, rather, an influence, based on the KJV's translation of Romans 8:16.

This isn't really how false doctrine works. False doctrine is often "proved" from perfectly-translated passages and sometimes even from the original languages themselves. So, this isn't dangerous. Anybody who believes the KJV teaches that the Spirit is impersonal based upon this one passage—the origins of which, again, we do not know—is simply an ignoramus and shouldn't be taken seriously on any point of doctrine whatsoever because they are incapable of basic hermeneutics.

 

[Polanus1561]

I don't know, and neither do you, which is my entire point. Asking the question and even some guarded speculation is fine, but saying they "couldn't figure out" that the Spirit is not a thing as opposed to a person contributes virtually nothing.


This isn't really how false doctrine works. False doctrine is often "proved" from perfectly-translated passages and sometimes even from the original languages themselves. So, this isn't dangerous. Anybody who believes the KJV teaches that the Spirit is impersonal based upon this one passage—the origins of which, again, we do not know—is simply an ignoramus and shouldn't be taken seriously on any point of doctrine whatsoever because they are incapable of basic hermeneutics.

Exactly. Heretics will make up whatever they makeup and people will listen to whatever they want to listen. e.g the serpent/seed nonsense mentioned in the other thread. If people want to ignore John 14:26 to complement Romans 8:16, well that is that

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Updated discussion from some of the LSB translators. For me personally, I have decided to stick with my NKJV and ESV.

 

[beloved7]

Updated discussion from some of the LSB translators. For me personally, I have decided to stick with my NKJV and ESV.

I’m curious as to see which will emerge as the predominant NASB long term; 95, 2020, or this. Only time will tell I suppose. It’s kind of hard to imagine that all three can be strong going forward in the marketplace.

 

[B.L.]

I started reading from the LSB in February and am really enjoying it. For readability, I much prefer it to the ESV and find it rising to one of my 'Top 3' translations to read from.